http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2011/03/01/face-of-damage-done-by-rehab-corruption/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142654/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

(Pennsylvania judges have so much credibility…)

public school = government school (government run education whose goal is definitely not purely scholarly education, paid for by taxes regardless of one having children in attendance)
justice system = pseudo legal system (justice is not the goal)

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2011/04/orleans-city-jail-police

Nobody?

Finality.

Even though mountains of new and exculpatory evidence was introduced post-conviction, no relief was ever given to Gerald Amirault, who served his entire sentence without early parole or pardon.

The Massachusetts SUCO decision in one matter used the legal basis of FINALITY to deny an action sought by the defendant.

Kind of sounds like the same thing happening in PA….

Pity that sentiment is not more common.

@13 Retention is not the answer. Impeachment is.

The majority of prosecutors are satisfied that any piece of evidence they present can demonstrate sufficient proof for conviction.

If a prosecutor presents evidence then obviously it’s sufficient proof to convict. Prosecutors are the subject-matter-experts on prosecuting people so who could possibly challenge their expertise.

Pennsylvania’s post conviction relief statute is one of the strictest. The 60 days time limit is almost impossible to meet. Especially if you are an inmate. Even one of the senators who drafted the law say the courts are reading it too strictly.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110424_Cleared_by_accusers__kept_jailed_by_Pa__law.html?viewAll=y

The innocent have it tough in Pennsylvania.

The Judge can’t be seen going easy on crime, better to error on the safe side and leave him locked up.

It’s a damn shame that bimbo isn’t up for retention until 2017.

The NAS report was a synthesis of research across nearly every forensic discipline. It was a landmark report, commissioned by Congress in response to the rash of DNA exonerations. The cruel conundrum here is that when other people convicted on bite mark testimony have filed for relief and cited the publication of an article in a narrowly-read scientific journal (also like Eddie Lee Howard in Mississippi), they’ve been denied on the argument that a peer-reviewed article here and there isn’t enough of a scientific consensus to overturn a jury verdict, especially if you already challenged the state’s bite mark expert at trial. If Kunco had filed shortly after that first journal article disputing bite mark evidence was published, and had he lost, in most states he would then be barred from making additional post-conviction claims on the same topic, even if more articles then came out showing a consensus that he was right.

Too long; didn’t read version:

If you cite the original research it isn’t sufficient, but if you wait to cite the scientific consensus it is too late. Your fucked if you do and fucked if you don’t.

Our criminal justice system is a complete joke and judges like Hathaway are evil, not in the Hannibal Lecter sense, but in a banal everyday sort of sense that allows this kind of thing to go on. It doesn’t hurt me so why should I care?